Ban on fissile material production opposed

UNITED NATIONS: Some powerful states had changed the strategic environment of the South Asian region, Pakistan complained to the world body on Tuesday and said it opposed banning production of fissile material used as fuel for nuclear weapons.

Fissile Production Ban and Pakistan - FMCT 

“Clearly it is not through choice but necessity that Pakistan is opposed to negotiations on Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), as no country can be expected to compromise on its fundamental security interests,” Pakistan`s delegate told the UN.

Over the past few years, some powerful countries, in pursuit of their commercial interests as well as dubious notions of balance of power, have embarked upon an unfettered and discriminatory nuclear cooperation arrangement in gross violation of their international commitments. “They have no moral authority in calling for strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime when they are themselves responsible for undermining it,” the deputy permanent representative of Pakistan to the UN, Mr Raza Bashir Tarar, told the first committee of UN General Assembly`s Disarmament and International Security.

“This has accentuated our security concerns as such nuclear cooperation shall further widen the asymmetry in stockpiles in our region,” he said.

Thus, FMCT that purported only to ban future production of fissile material would permanently freeze a strategic disadvantage for Pakistan and was therefore, unacceptable, the Pakistani diplomat said.

With the introduction of the treaty into the agenda of the conference, Mr Tarar said Pakistan had called attention to the fact that a treaty to cut off future production of fissile material will freeze the existing asymmetries in fissile material stockpiles, which will be detrimental for its national security.

Accordingly, Pakistan has been advocating a treaty that not only bans future production, but also aims at reducing existing stockpiles of fissile material.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/13/ban-on-fissile-material-production-opposed.html

CNN: U.N. peacekeepers killed in Darfur

(CNN) -- Three United Nations peacekeepers were killed in an ambush in a camp for displaced people in Sudan's Darfur region, the global body said Tuesday.

Two of the dead were soldiers; the third was a police adviser for the joint U.N. and African Union mission in the troubled region. Another six peacekeepers were injured in the incident.

They came under attack at 10:15 Monday night in the Zam Zam camp in North Darfur while the security unit was on patrol. One of the assailants was also killed, a statement from the joint mission said.

It was unclear why the attack occurred.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon "strongly condemns" the attack, the U.N. said in a statement. The attack was carried out by unidentified armed men while the peacekeepers were on a "confidence-building patrol," the statement said.

Ban "appeals to the Sudanese authorities to investigate the incident and to bring to justice the perpetrators as soon as possible," according to the statement.

The peacekeeping mission in Darfur is the world's largest at 20,000 authorized troops. Since it began in 2008, 33 peacekeepers have been killed.

"I condemn in the strongest terms this attack on our peacekeepers who have worked selflessly to bring security to the internally displaced persons of Zam Zam camp where so many Darfuris have sought refuge," said Ibrahim Gambari, head of the mission. "An attack on international peacekeepers is a war crime and we will ensure that justice will be served."

Darfur is among the most dangerous areas of operation for U.N. personnel. The region remains a tinderbox. At least 300,000 people have been killed and 2.7 million others driven from their homes as a result of fighting between Sudanese rebel groups and the Khartoum government and its allied armed militia.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/11/world/africa/sudan-peacekeepers-killed/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

World News - Torture at Afghan prisons commonplace: UN

KABUL: Afghanistan’s intelligence agency and police force have been “systematically” torturing detainees including children at a number of jails, in breach of local and international laws, a United Nations report said on Monday.

Scores of people told the UN that the National Directorate of Security (NDS) and the Afghan National Police had physically or mentally abused them, using beatings, electrocution and toenail removal, according to the report.

But the head of the UN in Afghanistan, Staffan de Mistura, said that torture was neither institutional nor government policy, and praised the ministry and intelligence agency for allowing access to their prisons for research.

The Afghan government rejected many of the allegations, but conceded there may have been some abuse, and added that steps were being taken to prevent further problems.

Interviews with 379 pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners were conducted at 47 different facilities by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) from October 2010 to August 2011.

The report said 324 of the detainees were accused of crimes related to the war.

There was systematic torture found at five NDS “facilities”, the report said, and “multiple, credible allegations” of torture at two others. There were also some allegations from 17 other facilities that the UN said it was still investigating.

Almost half of those interviewed were suspected insurgents, 20 percent were arrested while carrying explosives and 11 percent were failed suicide bombers.

UNAMA said almost half of those it interviewed at NDS facilities experienced interrogation techniques that constituted torture. Of those in police facilities, more than a third of the 117 suspected insurgents or those believed to be assisting militants told UNAMA they had been subjected to torture or inhumane treatment.

Beyond physical mistreatment, which included sexual humiliation, many prisoners also said they had been held beyond the maximum duration allowed by law and denied family visits.

The United Nations said Afghanistan’s difficult security situation did not justify any mistreatment.

False claims, or insurgent propaganda?

The intelligence agency said in an official response that “reference has been made to some issues that are not in conformity with work principles of the NDS,” and specifically rejected some allegations of mistreatment.

“Torture methods such as electric shock, threat of rape, twisting of sexual organs etc. are methods that are absolutely non-existent in the NDS,” an official government response said.

The statement suggested some insurgent prisoners might be making false claims to discredit the government. However it also said several officials had recently been dismissed or suspended, and the agency was “keen for reform and improvement in the field of interrogation”.

UNAMA said it had designed its study to take into account concerns from the Afghan authorities that detainees might give false accounts to discredit security agencies and further insurgent propaganda.

The Interior Ministry accepted there were cases of poor treatment of detainees in police custody, but said they were in the minority and it was committed to punishing violators and ensuring police were trained to protect human rights.

“It is evident … that the outcome of the report cannot be totally rejected/denied due to some existing problems,” it said.

The report follows a similar UN investigation into alleged torture that prompted NATO to halt transfers of prisoners to several southern Afghan jails in July.

Those findings raised questions about the capacity of Afghan security forces at a time when they are meant to be taking on greater security responsibilities ahead of a planned withdrawal of all foreign combat troops by the end of 2014.

Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/271012/torture-at-afghan-prisons-commonplace-un/

Bid for UNSC seat By Munir Akram

EVEN as the latest crises in relations with the US and Afghanistan preoccupy Pakistan’s policymakers, a scheduled event at the current UN General Assembly, with significant portents for the country’s national interests and international image, deserves their full attention — the election to a two-year Asian seat on the UN Security Council.

Membership of the Security Council — even for the two-year non-permanent seat — has several advantages: a voice at the ‘top table’; influence over decisions on important current security issues and political developments; and, of course, the enhanced ability to promote a country’s own national interests. Indeed, for Pakistan it would be crucial advantage to have a direct role in the Security Council during the next two years on Afghanistan, counterterrorism and non-proliferation, all issues that are on the Council’s ‘active’ agenda.

Pakistan is seeking election to the Council after a gap of nine years, a cycle which Pakistan has observed since the 1960s. In 2002, when it was last elected for the 2003-2004 term, Pakistan had secured the endorsement of the Asian Group as the sole regional candidate. This time around, Pakistan initially faced Fiji as the rival Asian candidate. Some months ago, as a friendly gesture, Fiji agreed to defer its bid and endorsed Pakistan’s candidature.

However, Kyrgyzstan has thrown its hat in the ring and, despite minimal chances of success, has remained adamant that it will stay in the contest to the bitter end. Reportedly, high-level approaches from Pakistan have been spurned so far by the Kyrgyz leadership.

The UN’s smaller member states, including micro-states, have the right to serve on the Council. Some small states, notably Singapore, Qatar and Costa Rica in recent years, have made singular contributions as members of the Security Council.

However, in several other cases, smaller states — whose priorities are mainly economic and social — have refrained from pressing for Council membership, particularly when their national capacity to cover the onerous agenda of the Council is clearly limited.

It was generally expected that such factors would eventually persuade Kyrgyzstan to relent, especially since Pakistan has prominent interests to preserve and promote within the Security Council. The Kyrgyz refusal to consider a compromise has surprised many observers at the UN. It is openly conjectured that the Kyrgyz persistence is the outcome of mischief promoted by one or more of Pakistan’s adversaries. The question is: who is behind this mischief?

Through a vigorous campaign at the UN and in capitals, Pakistan has reportedly garnered wide support for its candidature.

However, elections held through a secret ballot — as this election will be — are notoriously unpredictable. At times, commitments, verbal or written, fail to be honoured.

For example, when Pakistan triumphed over India in the 1976 elections to the Security Council, India’s then permanent representative, Rikki Jaipal, confided ruefully that he had received written commitments from well over a two-third majority of the General Assembly membership required for election. But India’s policies of the time — its 1971 military intervention to dismember Pakistan, absorption of Sikkim and the 1974 ‘peaceful nuclear explosion’ — had created disenchantment within the international community and played in Pakistan’s favour in the election. Indeed, these considerations were factored into the calculation that led prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to decide to challenge India’s bid for the Security Council seat that year.

Pakistan’s leadership should not expect that the forthcoming election will be immune from the events that bedevil Pakistan’s external relations at this time. Among the major powers, China will firmly support Pakistan, and there is every indication that Russia will also do so.

Despite periodic protestations of regional solidarity, Pakistan has never been able to count on India’s support. Indeed, it must count on India’s overt or covert opposition. New Delhi may be able also to sway some within its circle of close friends to refrain from supporting Pakistan. But, India-Pakistan rivalry is taken for granted at the UN and will not swing many votes.

Other South Asians have reportedly promised support, as indeed have most of the Central Asian neighbours of Kyrgyzstan.

At the UN, most astute observers are convinced that the Kyrgyz bid has been encouraged, if not inspired, by the US. It is reasoned that the US does not want Pakistan to have a seat on the Security Council during the critical endgame in Afghanistan or to provide it a platform to raise difficult issues such as the US drone attacks on Pakistan’s territory.

Unlike India, the US has the influence to significantly complicate Pakistan’s bid for the Security Council seat. Some years ago, Africa’s endorsed candidate, Sudan, was defeated by the last-minute US-sponsored candidature of Mauritius. In UN elections, the US and UK policy is not to declare their position on other countries’ candidatures (even though they expect other countries to assure them of support when they contest any post). Thus, Pakistan has not obtained an assurance of support from the Washington. According to one rumour, when asked what would it take for the US to declare its support for Pakistan’s candidature, a US diplomat responded, “an attack on the Haqqani network”.

Obviously, Kyrgyzstan cannot defeat Pakistan since it cannot secure a two-thirds majority of 128 votes in the General Assembly. But, if its candidature is, indeed, being propped up by the US, it is possible that Pakistan could be denied a two-thirds majority. In previous elections, if an impasse has not been overcome after several ballots, the compromise solution has been either to split the term between the competing candidates or to choose a third, mutually acceptable candidate from the region . Either scenario would be a major humiliation for Pakistan. The Pakistan government needs to exert all possible efforts — even at this eleventh hour — to avoid such an outcome.

The best solution would be to persuade Kyrgyzstan to step out of the contest. To this end, it would be worthwhile approaching the Kyrgyz leadership, including through the dispatch of a high-level envoy to work out an accommodation that offers appropriate incentives to Kyrgyzstan.

Second, a final effort should be made to secure an open assurance of support from the US. Without this, Islamabad would be justified in suspecting the strategic content of US policies, especially on regional issues involving Pakistan’s vital national interests. If Pakistan does encounter difficulties in the forthcoming electoral contest, it would have inevitable negative consequences for the already troubled Pakistan-US relationship.

Third, a final round of high-level approaches need to be made in the capitals of those member states which have yet to offer formal support for Pakistan’s candidature. Pakistan should be prepared for trade-offs and bargains. But it should be conveyed also that the position of the concerned states will have an impact on Pakistan’s bilateral relations with them.

Lastly, in these final days, the scope, level and vigour of the lobbying campaign at the General Assembly must be intensified.

The Foreign Office should deploy additional diplomats with UN experience with the General Assembly delegation to ensure the optimum number of votes for Pakistan on election day. It would also be appropriate for the Pakistan foreign minister to be personally present at the General Assembly to garner maximum support and highlight the importance which the Pakistan’s government attaches to the election.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan to the UN in New York & Geneva.